On 05.08.2025 05:49, Jiqian Chen wrote:
> --- a/xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c
> +++ b/xen/drivers/vpci/rebar.c
> @@ -49,6 +49,32 @@ static void cf_check rebar_ctrl_write(const struct pci_dev
> *pdev,
> bar->guest_addr = bar->addr;
> }
>
> +static int cf_check cleanup_rebar(const struct pci_dev *pdev)
> +{
> + int rc;
> + uint32_t ctrl;
> + unsigned int nbars;
> + unsigned int rebar_offset = pci_find_ext_capability(pdev->sbdf,
> +
> PCI_EXT_CAP_ID_REBAR);
> +
> + if ( !rebar_offset || !is_hardware_domain(pdev->domain) )
> + {
> + ASSERT_UNREACHABLE();
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + ctrl = pci_conf_read32(pdev->sbdf, rebar_offset + PCI_REBAR_CTRL(0));
> + nbars = MASK_EXTR(ctrl, PCI_REBAR_CTRL_NBAR_MASK);
> +
> + rc = vpci_remove_registers(pdev->vpci, rebar_offset + PCI_REBAR_CAP(0),
> + PCI_REBAR_CTRL(nbars - 1));
> + if ( rc )
> + printk(XENLOG_ERR "%pd %pp: fail to remove Rebar handlers rc=%d\n",
> + pdev->domain, &pdev->sbdf, rc);
MSI and MSI-X (now) have ASSERT_UNREACHABLE() on their respective paths. Is
there a reason this shouldn't be done here as well?
MSI and MSI-X further have another add-register below here, to ensure the
control register cannot be written. Again - is there a reason the same
shouldn't be done here? (If so, I think this may want putting in a comment.)
Jan
